The Problem Of Evil Flashcards
Logical Problem of Evil: BASICS
Based on 3 statements and observed facts
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omnibenevolent
3. Evil exists
All three can’t exist at same time
Logical Problem of Evil: DENYING GOD’S OMNIPOTENCE
Suggests unworthy of worship
Logical Problem of Evil: DENYING GOD’S BENEVOLENCE
Contradicts teachings of Jesus and undermines very basis of Christian belief
Logical Problem of Evil: DENYING EVIL
- Augustine: evil is absence of good in same way darkness is absence of light
- Aquinas: evil was lack of something good that was natural to it
Evidentiary Problem of Evil: BASICS
Quantity
Quality
Pointlessness
Evidentiary Problem of Evil: BASICS EXAMPLES
Quantity: Holocaust
Quality: Holocaust
Pointlessness: deer dying in a forest fire w. no one around
Evidentiary Problem of Evil: QUESTIONS
God’s omniscient
Omniscient God would know about terrible suffering caused by both moral and natural evil
Free Will Defence: FIRST ORDER GOOD/ EVIL
Experience in life of happiness
Experience in life of misery/ pain
Free Will Defence: SECOND ORDER GOOD/ EVIL
Respond to suffering w. compassion, kindness, love
— maximise first order good, minimise first order evil
Respond to suffering w. cruelty, hate, spite
— maximise first order evil, minimise first order good
Free Will Defence: THIRD ORDER GOOD
Free Will allows humans to chose betweeen two things w. pain needed to develop capacity for empathy to ‘grow’
Free Will Defence: FOURTH ORDER GOOD
God gave humans free will which teaches us moral responsibility
Free Will Defence: MACKIE’S REJECTION
Logically it is possible for someone to freely chose good at every point of choice
Therefore God could have made people so they have true free choice yet always chose good
He didn’t so…
- He lacks power
- He lacks love
- He doesn’t exist
Free Will Defence: PLANTINGA’S DEFENCE- Moral Evil
3 possible words mean 3 options
1. W. morally significant free will & no causal determination from God means no evil & suffering
2. W/out morally significant free Will w. God’s causal determination to chose good so no evil
3. W. morally significant free will & God’s causal determination to chose good so no evil
According to Plantinga…
1. Logically possible
2. Logically possible= humans as robots
3. Logically impossible= genuine free will incompatible w. causal determination
Therefore Mackie’s argument fails
Free Will Defence: PLANTINGA’S DEFENCE- Natural Evil
Tied up w. punishment for Fall
Logically possible God created/ allowed it because of human sin in Eden
Free Will Defence: STRENGTHS (3)
Plantinga’s approach shows logical possibility in relation to types of evil
Addresses issues of natural evil which has to be free to follow its laws of operation
World w. genuine free will has more value than one w/out it
Free Will Defence: WEAKNESSES (3)
Doesn’t mean Plantinga’s argument is true
All hinges on whether libertarianism provides right interpretation of human experience
Does being free justify such a terrible cost as the Holocaust?
Soul-Making Theodicy: BASIS (2)
Apply modern scientific, theological, philosophical insights
Respond to challenge of atheism
Soul-Making Theodicy: KEY POINTS (6)
- Humans are high point of evolution
- Work is a ‘vale of soul- making’
- Two stage concept of humanity
- God has epistemically distance w. humans
- Sin is inevitable
- Universalist
Soul-Making Theodicy: OBJECTIONS (3)
Doesn’t address issue of animal suffering
Epistemic distance doesn’t resolve problem of purposeful evil
Doesn’t justify very worst of evils
Soul-Making Theodicy: HICK’S RESPONSES TO OBJECTIONS (3)
- Pain needed to warn animals of danger, don’t fear future/death
- Remain mystery so ED isn’t lost as we would know God existed so couldn’t chose rel. w. Him
- If worst evils removed, next worse evil would become worst evil/ more evils removed, less free & responsible humans are
Soul-Making Theodicy: STRENGTHS (3)
Fits w. current scientific thinking of evolution
Idea of ED justifies all kinds of evil
Claim of concept of eternal damnation in Hell is defeat for love of God makes sense
Soul-Making Theodicy: WEAKNESSES (3)
If humans are evolved animals, how are we made in image of God
Justification of animal suffering is weak: end doesn’t justify means
If all are ultimately saved, God overriding human freedom
Process Theology: BASIS
Take into account quantum mechanics
Process Theology: REJECTIONS OF WHAT
Idea of creation ex nihilo
God’s omnipotence
Truth of Church can’t be accepted simply because it is logically possible
Process Theology: KEY POINTS (4)
- Both God and universe is transcendent, pantheistic, eternal
- Just as humans can’t dictate way body works, God can’t do that w. His body, universe
- Drive towards increased complexity inevitably leads to tow possible & parallel paths
- God is responsible not culpable for having sparked evolutionary process resulting in so much suffering
Process Theology: STRENGTHS (4)
Fits w. current scientific knowledge & biblical criticism
Concept of God can suffer, shows those that suffer that God understands
Rejection of God’s omnipotence leaves way for no conflict between benevolent God & reality of evil
Strong case for subjective immortality based on parapsychology
Process Theology: WEAKNESSES (4)
Claim we can’t be sure of actual translation for Genesis 1:1
Doesn’t apply to animals whose suffering is equal to that of humans
For many theists God is unworthy of worship
Idea of objective immortality is unsatisfactory to many theists
